Are Lessee, Renter And Tenant The Same?

[tExtra]

Are they also obliged to pay property tax? Or is that the obligation of property owner ah?

 

[Kaylin]

freeloader kym

 

[tExtra]

freeloader kym

当然！你说的算

 

[Kaylin]

当然！你说的算

wah u so nice, i say everything u also ky

 

[tExtra]

wah u so nice, i say everything u also ky

Got everything meh?

 

[buttbERry]

how u define each one?

 

[tExtra]

how u define each one?

Is a question.

 

[lifeisinforashock]

Are they also obliged to pay property tax? Or is that the obligation of property owner ah?

Interestingly, iras website say owners pay property tax but title deed states lessee...

 

[tExtra]

Interestingly, iras website say owners pay property tax but title deed states lessee...

Then how ah?

 

[Orphan]

Are they also obliged to pay property tax? Or is that the obligation of property owner ah?

Ultimately depends on context.

My opinion - owner is the one who has to pay property tax since it is an asset they own. Owner can renovate or sell off the property.

Lessee is a long term renter. Pays a sum of money either in full or in installments to live/utilize (and renovate if the owner agrees) the property. Cannot sell the property as it is not the leesee's asset. Though might be allowed by owner to sublet.

If a distintion is to be made between leesee and renter, then renter would be short term. Eg if I lease a car, I lease it for at least a month. If I rent a car, it is generally only for a few days. Leasing a property will probably be for several years. Renting a property can be for a few months or for a 1 year contract. Renter normally pays monthly rent. No ownship, property is not an asset. Cannot sell property.

Tenant normally just lives there. They do not own the property. They do not pay for the lease or rent either. In car terms, they are the passenger. No ownership, property not theirs. Cannot sell property.

 

[tExtra]

Ultimately depends on context.

My opinion - owner is the one who has to pay property tax since it is an asset they own. Owner can renovate or sell off the property.

Lessee is a long term renter. Pays a sum of money either in full or in installments to live/utilize (and renovate if the owner agrees) the property. Cannot sell the property as it is not the leesee's asset. Though might be allowed by owner to sublet.

If a distintion is to be made between leesee and renter, then renter would be short term. Eg if I lease a car, I lease it for at least a month. If I rent a car, it is generally only for a few days. Leasing a property will probably be for several years. Renting a property can be for a few months or for a 1 year contract. Renter normally pays monthly rent. No ownship, property is not an asset. Cannot sell property.

Tenant normally just lives there. They do not own the property. They do not pay for the lease or rent either. In car terms, they are the passenger. No ownership, property not theirs. Cannot sell property.

Interesting interpretation. (=

Apart from the duration and $$ paid, your position is also that the ownership of a property is determined by one’s legal rights to sell / rent the property conferred by a contractual agreement. Supposed if he / she / it could sell / rent, he / she / it is obliged to pay the property tax. The terminology used / its synonyms does not matter. Is that right?

 

[coyote]

Not this again. I suspect those stirring this topic do not own any HDB or condos. Because those real HDB owners usually just laughing to the bank with rental income or making hundreds of thousands in profit when they sell. Property tax is just a small part of the whole scheme.

This is Singapore version of common prosperity共同富裕. When you rent, buy, sell your property, developers take a cut, government takes a cut, lawyers take a cut, agents take a cut and most importantly the property owner takes the biggest cut. That way, the society can progress.

 

[Orphan]

Interesting interpretation. (=

Apart from the duration and $$ paid, your position is also that the ownership of a property is determined by one’s legal rights to sell / rent the property conferred by a contractual agreement. Supposed if he / she / it could sell / rent, he / she / it is obliged to pay the property tax. The terminology used / its synonyms does not matter. Is that right?

Yes, based on my layman interpretation of the English words - that's the main gist of what I consider are the differences in the 3 terms. It should be based on the fact of what rights are afforded to them, rather than what they are called.

Though the last part about the terminology bears some further explanation. This is the part that is dependant on the context.

I would guess that somewhere out there, are parties who would state in the contract that the leesee is the de facto owner and/or needs to pay property tax. So in this case, the definition in the contracts signed (and agreed!) between the parties would take precedence over what are the general meanings of the terms used.

In fact, they can even do away with using the words owner/leesee, and call the de factor owner "Mickey Mouse" and leesee "Donald Duck".

Plus any special terms like saying Mickey Mouse owns the property, pays property tax, can sell, but cannot modify the property's facade. (as an example, properties with historical significance like certain castles in Europe).

Legal contracts can be really evil and major ones should always be reviewed by one's own lawyers. Otherwise, when fecal matter hits the fan, there is no such thing as trust in good faith. Each party will comb the contract for whatever is written to support their claims.